Supporting better evidence generation and use within social innovation in health in low- and middle-income countries: Interview data

Thirty-two interviews were conducted between July and November 2015. One-on-one interviews were conducted via Skype or telephone to increase participation and enable sampling from a wide range of geographies. The Department of Social Policy and Intervention Research Ethics Committee (DREC) provided ethics approval in accordance with the procedures established by the University of Oxford. Participants were approached by email and provided written consent to participate and for the researchers to publish findings. Three of those contacted declined to participate; all three said they did not feel qualified to comment on the subject.

In order to understand a range of viewpoints, we targeted three categories of stakeholders: practitioners, policymakers, and funders. Health practitioners were sampled via the network of a prominent social entrepreneurship foundation that identifies and supports high-performing innovators (i.e. strong strategic partnerships, scalable model, diversified funding base, >1 million USD operating budget etc.). Policymakers and funders were purposively selected for their experience working with participating practitioners and, in the case of funders, their eminence in healthcare financing (>2 billion USD direct grantee support per year). Participants were classified by their primary present occupation; several participants had expertise in one of the other areas (i.e. practitioners who later became policymakers). Recruitment was on a first come, first served basis.

Interviews lasted 30-45 minutes and were predominantly conducted by MB and JT. Neither MB nor JT had a prior relationship with those they interviewed and participants likewise had little knowledge of the interviewers. Both MB and JT were doctoral students at the time of the study and both had previous experience working in healthcare in LMICs. A topic guide tailored to each type of stakeholder was used, which included perceived value of research, understanding of study design, experiences working with the various groups, and suggestions for improvement. The guide was piloted on the first two interviews of each stakeholder type and subsequently refined. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. No repeat interviews were conducted; no gratuity was offered to participants.